The main person concerned welcomed the verdict with satisfaction and above all a lot of relief, according to his lawyer Me Pénélope Provencher.
“He believes that justice has been done in the case,” she said at the end of the hearing.
In his decision, the judge included all the testimony and facts that were heard during the legal proceedings.
At the opening of the trial, in April 2024, the complainant recounted in detail the events of this “first date” which ended at the home of Maxime Hains in September 2022. She had described penetrations “without reciprocity” and had claimed that was not what she wanted. She also recounted another episode which took place on a boat a few days later.
The accused testified in his defense during the month of May when the trial resumed. He affirmed that the “connection was good” and that the complainant was “very involved” in the exchange of kisses. He said the sex was “fully consensual.”
“The trial judge does not have the right to compare the testimonies of the accused and the complainant and to choose the one which appears to him to be the most sincere. He must engage in a meticulous and rigorous exercise of proof and concentrate on the principle of reasonable doubt.
— Hubert Couture, judge of the Court of Quebec
“It is never superfluous to recall that an accused is presumed innocent and that he does not have to demonstrate his innocence,” he added.
The question of consent was at the heart of the case according to the court since the touching of a sexual nature was not contested.
In his analysis, Judge Couture noted questionable actions and certain contradictions in the testimony of the accused who had completely denied the alleged actions. Remember that Maxime Hains had insisted that he was convinced “100% that she was present and consenting all the time”. His testimony alone could not support a reasonable doubt according to the court.
It is by analyzing all of the evidence that the judge comes to the conclusion that the evidence retained was not sufficient and that a reasonable doubt remains.
“This does not mean that the court does not believe the complainant. This is simply the application of the standard of proof required in any criminal trial,” he said.
For Judge Hubert Couture, the complainant’s testimony raised a lot of questions on several aspects.
“His testimony is made up of numerous explanations for his behavior […] In many aspects, his memory is shaky,” noted the judge.
The defense welcomed the judge’s decision as he left court.
“I believe that the court followed the law well in terms of the principles applicable in cases of this nature. He came to the conclusion that due to certain inaccuracies, several questions remained in his mind. He rightly concludes, in my opinion, that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of consent of the complainant,” commented Me Provencher.
Restricted practice
Last May, the disciplinary council of the Order of Chiropractors of Quebec pronounced the “immediate provisional limitation of the table of the Order of Dr. Maxime Hains, chiropractor”. Dr Hains had, among other things, to be accompanied by a third person to receive women in his office.
The Order of Chiropractors of Quebec has confirmed News writer that this limitation on exercise was lifted with the acquittal of Maxime Hains, but did not wish to make specific comments on the case.
“Professional orders have other means to properly protect the public. The population can be sure that their protection is assured,” said Dr. Philippe Larrivière, president of the Order of Chiropractors of Quebec.
Do you have legal news or sensitive information to share with us? You can write to us at [email protected]
Related News :